About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
CSPAN2 12
CSPAN 10
CNNW 3
CNBC 2
LINKTV 2
CNN 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
MSNBCW 1
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 42
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)
of a couple in the last year to syria when the e.u.'s embargo changed, the provisions of that changed and so, i think those are advantages. >> thank you. >> mike gates. >> can you confirm in the case of an agreement between the u.k. and another government perhaps some kind of defense cooperation that doesn't have the same status as the, where we are talking about restrictions or controls on the arms exports that are purchased from british companies or exported from this country? in other words, if the mod decides to transfer equipment to another state that wouldn't be subjected to the same criteria as would apply with regards to the armed export regime? . . >> if you have further information; that would be helpful. okay. that's fine. can i ask you about the review as regards the workload that you referred to for ministers, the number of items for consideration: you said thorough overseeing of ministers went up 235 this year compared to 153 last year and 39 in the previous year before your middle east and north africa review. >> right. >> this is presumably dealt with by the human rights sect
because there are so many e.u. trips that i have been on with the bush administration and the obama administration where they blame the united states for bringing down the rest of the world when it comes to its state of the economy. it looks like now things are almost reversed in a way. tell us about your conversation with cameron. >> when i interviewed prime minister cameron here in new york and he was sort of in the lion's den because he had thrown down the gauntlet with this speech about britain's position in the european union. britain is not fully in in terms of it is not part of the eurozone. it doesn't have the euro but in many aspects it is in and it is a full member. united states depends on britain for the very strong role in international affairs. it helps all over the place whether in trying to confront iran, syria and north korea with sanctions and plays a big role whether afghanistan, iraq. david cameron is saying we like our foreign role. we like you and our economic role in the e.u. but we don't want to be a part of your political role. he is trying to negotiate a ha
.k., the british finance minister, george osbo e osborne, wants the e.u. to toughen bank regulation across the 27 member states. britain's set plans in motion to separate retail investment decisions in part on proposals from the finnish central bank governor. the fed is also reportedly considering a plan to help banks avoid costly regulations aimed at preventing derivatives trading from being subsidized by taxpayers. the "financial times" says it stems from the lincoln amendment, included in the 2010 dodd-frank law. it prohibits banks that have access to federal deposit insurance or fed credit from acting as derivatives dealers. u.s. banks will still be able to trade some products like interest rate swaps. under the rule, foreign banks would be forced to move their u.s. derivatives activities off their books. >> yeah. if you followed that, you get a gold star this morning. it's a tricky one. >> there's a law that means foreign banks will have problems trading derivatives in the united states. >> charlie, any thoughts here? >> you know, it's part of this broad regulatory framework being put in pla
eu joins us from beijing with more of the details. eunice, there have been questions about china's reliability in data. over the past couple of years. >> there's always a big question about that. in fact, goldman sachs and ubs were some of the brokerages that came out recently questioning the latest december numbers for the export figures. they were concerned that the export numbers reported by china didn't seem to match the export data from its trading partners and the slow at some of the ports. that was raising questions. the chinese officials came out and defended the numbers and said that the numbers were all well and good. there is so much skepticism about that. the trade data was looking as though it was very much in flux. however, when you take a look at those in isolation, it raises a lot of question marks. but in terms of going forward, how you read these data points, most economists say you have to look at them as guidelines. this is a developing economy. so in terms of guidelines, the latest figures that we saw for 2012 in terms of gdp or for industrial output and ever
as the eu politics are, they're on their way to unified banking regulation in the eurozone. their crisis fund has stabilized. it's not going to be pretty and it's going to take a couple of years still, but we are on our way to a stronger and more unified eu, with or without britain over time. >> what do you think? >> a little bit too positive to me. i would say europe is probably not coming apart. different said statement than europe is coming together. i think the reason it probably won't come apart is greece, not france. sooner or later, that is the real test. the president of france is taking france in directions that are truly unsustainable economically. but for germany, it's one thing if greece were to leave, but for france, it can't leave. if you're germany, that's the whole core, the whole concept, the dynamic of post-world war ii european integration. germany will go to great lengths, i think really whatever lengths it takes to keep france in. europe will survive but economic growth is not going to take off, it's still going to be extremely weak because it doesn't have in place a
the bailout. that was an incredible show of will. halting and clumsy and awkward as the eu politics are, they're on the way to banking regulation in the euro zone. it's not going to be pretty and it's going to take a couple years still, but we are on our way to a stronger and more unified eu with or without britain over time. >> what do you think? >> too positive to me. europe is probably not coming apart. different said statement than europe is coming together. the reason it probably won't come together is not greece, it's france. sooner or later, that is the real test. the president of france is taking france in directions that are truly unsustainable economically. france can't leave if you're germany because that's the whole core, the whole dynamic. the relationship. germany will go to great lengths, really, whatever lengths it takes to keep france in. europe will survive but economic growth is not going to take off, still extremely weak because it doesn't have in place any of the prerequisites. >> the head of morgan stanley had a piece where he said that europe is actually going to bounce
the e.u. to impose sanctions on hezbollah, and you have been a believer that we should not do it alone, we should do with unilateral. what we do take the chance and urged the european union to sanction has a lot? is we shouldn insurer swer not be writing lesser proof, i think the president is the appropriate official. >> and congress has no interest in whether the e.u. would be sanctioned as a terrorist or a station? >> the congress has a responsibility in a lot of things. >> that me ask you this about the iranian revolutionary guard. he said a minute ago you think they are a terrorist recession. do you agree? bailout yes. >> and you voted against the amendment designating them as a terrorist organization because they are recognized as a state? iran, you would not want to designate the army of a recognized as a terrorist? >> i just clarify a statement on iran being a recognized nation by the nine nations, by most world bodies. the reason why i did not vote as 22 other members that because i think jim webb's argument was a strong argument, and that is we have -- and this is what he said
, the eu are still our enemy. you should sign the paper you never leave sudan, never travel out of sudan, and never [indiscernible] and i did not. >> he refused? >> i refused to sign it. >> we still on the hunger strike? >> yes. >> they put in a feeding tube for you? >> [indiscernible] after i arrived in the sudan hospital. >> the ticket onto an airplane at guantanamo? they put you on a plane on guantanamo? >> yes. me and to the people from sudan -- two people from sudan. >> did they put back on your head? >> people from afghanistan. they took us from guantanamo and landing in baghdad, iraq. then they changed the aircraft and set me to sudan. we had another guy from morocco to sudan. >> when you landed in khartoum, was your family there? >> my family at that time was in doha, but they came to me. when i came to sudan, because i sat too long, but did not understand where i was. i did not feel anything. i opened my eyes and i find myself in the hospital in sudan. after five or six years, my wife and my son. >> did you recognize your son? >> of course. of course. by feeling, not by his face
is qualifying for e.u. bail-out money. 2013 is bringing more protests. young and old in athens. unemployment in greece is higher than spain. and pensions are slinking. >> we are rapidly going backwards. far backwards. the only battle is the battle on the street. >> greece is trying to keep a lid on things. mass transit strike in the second week. officials say they will jail workers if they don't go back on the job. greeks are tired. this is a hassle but what can we do? >> this is watched by the u.s. wall street buffeted by the european trouble. washington planning austerity moves and taxes and all are hoping what has happened in europe isn't a preview of years to come. bret? >> bret: greg palkot in london. thanks. >>> you have heard the talk is cheap. the promises are not. concerns entitlements and how to pay for them. jim angle says the president didn't shed light on that earlier in week. >> treated like innellis. he had several issues in inaugural address but one in particular stuck out to some. comment about entitlement. s. >> the commitment we make to each other, through medicare and soc
the sum total of all of your votes, refusing to sign a letter to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to guard terrorist terrorist organization, one of two to vote on sanction this body tried to make on iran and the statements you made after palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all of that together, that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> i would not agree with that. if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, vote to say the iranian revolutionary guard was terrorist organization would you vote no? >> times change. it recognize that. yes, i would reconsider. >> thank you. that encouraging. >> bret: interesting exchange with lindsey graham. back with the panel. you talk about senator graham's exchange with chuck hagel. >> now that we have shown everyone how spontaneous and non-rehearsed we, are i was thinking of the tape where he quotes hagel saying the jewish lobby has intimidated senators in to voting
. that says something about academia and the world. did you see the poster the e.u.? showing all the symbols of europe? it showed a cross, star of david, crescent and so on, and a hammer and cycle. there was a bit -- there's an outcry from the lit wanians, and why aren't we in the west sympathetic enough to the sufferers, the persecutors under communism to subject ourselves? why leave it to these? but there it was. i'm fairly relaxed about the communism symbols. you see a guy with a cccp sweatshirt and his trinkets. i did a study of this, a simple magazine piece, and, you know, they are not the worst. people say it's proof we won and can mock it. it's just kind of funny. you don't see swastikas and people saying, oh, relax, it's just a t-shirt. as was pointed out, there was just one good picture taken in his life, looks like a movie star in the picture, the cheekbones just right, but other pictures, not all that much, really, honestly. let me -- this is all regarding chambers, really, but he was a witness and a truth teller e and it was really, really hard for him to fore sake, not pop pew l
and something about the world. did you see this poster from the e.u. showing all of the symbols of the euro? it showed a cross, star of david and so on and a hammer and sickle. there is a bit of an outcry from the lithuanians. and i ask why does it take the lithuanians, why aren't we in the west sympathetic enough to the persecuted under communism to object ourselves? white -- why would we leave it to them? i am relaxed about these symbols. we see a guy what they cccp with hammers and sickles and i once did a study on this on a simple magazine piece and some people say it's proof. it's kind of funny. you know, you don't see the pictures on t-shirts. it's just a t-shirt. as andrew daniels points out if we only took one good picture in this life he looks like a moon star and he got his cheekbones just right but it wasn't all that much, honestly. this is all regarding chambers, but he was a witness and a truth teller and it was really hard for him to forsake not popular approval but the approval of the people that mattered was colleagues and journalism and what we might call the liberal establ
the world. did you see this poster from the e.u.? showing all the symbols of europe? it showed a cross, the star of david and the muslim crescent and so on and the hammer and sickle. there is an outcry from the lithuanians and i asked why does it take the lithuanians ,-com,-com ma why aren't we in the west sympathetic enough to sufferers persecuted under communism to object ourselves? why leave it to these folks but there it was. i am fairly relaxed about these common symbols. if you see a guy with the ccc piece white shirt and you see these trinkets and hammers and sickles and so on. i once did a study of this, simple magazine piece, and some people say it's proof that we weren't that we can mock that. is just kind of funny. you don't see swastikas and he don't see pictures of goering on t-shirts and you don't have people say it's just a t-shirt. daniels points out che guevara only took one good picture in his life. he looks like a movie star in the picture. he got his cheekbones just right but other pictures he wasn't that much really, honestly. this is all regarded in chambers reall
of your votes, refusing to sign a letter to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, being one of two on two occasions to vote against sanctions that this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all that together. that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that. because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as a terrorist organizations. >> if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, to vote to say that the iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to start with... >> well i know why, you told me that. my question is would you reconsider and would you vote yes this time? or would you still vote no? >> times change. i recognize that an
123450eu6789. >> schieffer: you're favoring getting out of there. >> the quicker the better. >> schieffer: should we leave a residual force there of some kind. >> bob i would think i've been there twice now as a governor and as a u.s. senator and i believe we have some strategic especially the force base. that's a tremendous opportunity strategic point for us to launch from to protect our troops for our special forces to operate out of. i would did he ever to the experts -- defer to the experts and professionals on that. we have this war on terror not just from our generation but our children's and grandchildren's. we have to be able to strike at terror before it strikes us. >> schieffer: i don't think there's any question we have denied al-qaeda a save haven in afghanistan but they now have a safe haven in pakistan. what do we do with pakistani. >> i approve of the jones strikes there. i'm one that says we should use all the technology we have to protect america and americans without putting them in harm's way. that's been very effective. we've been able to strike and tak
to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, being one of two on two occasions to vote against sanctions that this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all that together. that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that. because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as a terrorist organizations. >> if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, to vote to say that the iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to start with... >> well i know why, you told me that. my question is would you reconsider and would you vote yes this time? or would you still vote no? >> times change. i recognize that and, yes, i would reconsider. >> well, t
a positive or more negatively? >> pakistan sees a positive role for the eu, united states, other organizations, international organizations. but what is the role that nader sees for itself? is it military when we talk about nato? or is it economic? or is it political? i think nato doesn't appear to where so many hats. basically, when we talk about nato we're talking about military. well, that i think has already been discussed. but certainly the eu, other organizations, the united states, really has very important political role, economic role. i think afghanistan -- i think nader can also help support the iran army to do a better job with its resources. so we are in favor of that, this kind of role. there was one mentioned about india and transatlantic trade comments it appeared that also comes -- there are so may things that can be done if only the conflicts situation gets resolved, and also in the border area with pakistan. >> ambassador jawad, nato's will? >> yes, particularly i think your question was on nato's role through northern afghanistan. i think this is a key importa
eu9 days. i -- every 90 days. i think the appropriators of the house and senate would come together. but every 90 days there would be an additional 1% until the appropriations bills or the year-long resolution has been enacted. these are designinged to keep both sides at the bargaining table. they aren't so small as to be irrelevant, but they're not so large as to cut 234eu programs. priorities of both republicans and democrats would be subject to the same across-the-board cuts. and both parties therefore would have an incentive to come to an agreement that fully funds priority programs and reduces funding for lower priorities. this bipartisan amendment may not be each lawmaker's idea of perfect. it is not mine smed i would rather get all the appropriations bills done. but that's not what's happening. but we should all agree that it improves upon the current situation where we bounce from crisis to crisis, worried about government shutdowns as well as to rush bills to avoid shutdowns much the american people want us to complete our work in a logical way. and this amendment helps us
proposal, set forth by the uk independent commission on banking and the eu's group. sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission, has argued criticized the coalition government and the backing away from his original proposal. while the european commission's recent report summarizes the responses received and it acknowledges the widespread opposition of a proposal in a determinedly understated action. it argues that a compelling case for mandatory separation of trading activities hasn't been made. they felt that the proposal is not backed by the required evidence and that there was a need for thorough impact assessment. with all due respect my to my friends in the european financial regulatory community, what a regulatory proposal is used within the eu, considered too harsh on the financial industry and harmful to markets, it's a clear sign that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens respect to the proposals, even if all of the most vitriolic allegations set forth are true, even if our financial giants act solely and ruthlessly out of self
trying to convince the e.u. to designate hezbollah as a global terrorist organization. this will be some interesting hearings and i think the senate will ask some pretty tough questions. jenna: to generalize that that that is interesting because it is about being able to name who our enmy -- enemies are in a broad context. general scales, senator kerry and senator hagel, both vets and supporters of the military and critics of the military as well. how do you have the two vets in high positions potentially? what would that mean? >> that's a great question. first of all i tend to support the person over the policy. i testified before senator hagel's committee in 2007 over the surge and i talked with him at length after my testimony. i will tell you this. one thing that struck me about him is enormous empathy for the american soldier. and as the military draws down he is going to be a person i think who maintains the trust and the compact that the government has with our returning veterans from iraq and afghanistan. so here's a buy who has seen war, who understands the nature and character
that he felt that american television programming certainly appear in the '70 z, '70s, '0eu89d had a positive event demonstrating american vawms to the world. how do you think the world outside the united states show "24" and "homeland" and what effect do you think -- have you heard anything at all? >> yeah. "24" and "homeland" are extraordinarily popular not just in germany and in the u.k. but also in jordon, turkey, and places you, you know, frankly "24" is a huge knit iran. it's being beamed in illegally by i can't remember the name. >> you're not getting paid for it. >> right. i'm not getting paid for it, no. >> but it's smuggled in a lot. yeah. we heard it from -- [inaudible] >> >> yeah. >> and the actor who plays a character is persian and has a lot of connections in iran and he's been tracking . >> butt thing . >> tracking "homeland" in iran. >> and surprise stunningly popular. statement i have read a few criticisms of the show, and again, to the extend we sort of, i think, make piss people off on every side of the aisle and embraced too. tvs a good thing. i think one thing
barack obama and the eu, i think even hillary clinton would agree at this point, what difference does it make? which, by the way is going to be her campaign slogan in 2016. the nobel peace prize should go to people who risk their lives and doing heroic work and whose efforts will be magna advertised by recognition from this award. hillary clinton does not risk her life. she does not do heroic work. i have been waiting all day to hear from mr. garland nixon about what she has done for any tangible effort at peace whatsoever. >> garland, let us know? what do you think? >> a couple of things. first of all with former president clinton, if you look at the clinton foundation, they have donated upwards of $30 million to haiti since the earthquake. they have been responsible for literally millions of people getting -- in africa getting medication for h.i.v. and aids. it's hard to question the clinton foundation and what they have done. >> what about hillary? secretary clinton i should say. >> one of the important things she has done is taken the state department in a fundamentally different
. 89 senators voted for it. he voted against it. a letter to the eu asking the eu to designate hezbollah a terrorist organization. 88 senators signed it. he was one of the ones who didn't. when there was a letter to russia asking to deal with the rising tide of anti-semitism in russia. 99 senators signed the letter, one did not, chuck hagel. he has the right to have those interviews but there is a bipartisan consensus in washington illustrated by the math outside it. the question is why does the president want that in the discussion? why does he want that person with those judgments running the pentagon at this time? those are important questions to be explored during the hearing. >> he should have the opportunity to answer that. he has made clear on matters that impact israel the most in a positive way, i would not have been on the side of senator hagel in those votes, important to answer it and important to look at his entire record. on the things that matter most with u.s. policy and our great ally, israel, he has been as responsible as any when it comes to financial support
to -- ountries that aspire to ascendancy in the eu. progress there will continue american leadership. i hope we will continue to work again to the region to ensure -- in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. thank you for your leadership of the european foreign subcommittee. i look forward to working with a. -- you. >> senator kerry, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement in response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience. i would've enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i will enjoy working with you as secretary of state. these are complex issues, these are dangerous times. i grew up helping politics at the water's edge and was true. -- hoping that that maxim that politics ends at the water's edge was true. i believe we share the same goals. we want a secure, prosperous america. i think that starts being open and honest with each other. i hate to go back to yesterday's news and by yesterday when i was asking a relatively simple question, secretary clinton's reaction was "what difference a
that aspire to ascendancy in the eu. progress there will continue american leadership. i hope we will continue to work again to the region to ensure they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. thank you for your leadership of the european foreign subcommittee. i look forward to working with a. >> senator kerry, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement in response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience. i would've enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i will enjoy working with you as secretary of state. these are complex issues, these are dangerous times. i grew up helping politics at the water's edge and was true. i believe we share the same goals. we want a secure, prosperous america. i think that starts being open and honest with each other. i hate to go back to yesterday's news and by yesterday when i was asking a relatively simple question, secretary clinton's reaction was i think it makes a big difference. i think it matters a great deal at the american people get the truth. i think they have the right to be told the
pleated, we still have those countries that aspear to ascend ancy into the e.u. i would just urge you that further progress in that area is going to continue to require american leadership. i hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. i just want to thank you for your leadership of the european affairs subcommittee you've done a tremendous job working on it and i look forward to working with you. >> senator kerry, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement and your thoughtful response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your global experience, your depth of knowledge in these areas. i would have enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee and i'm going to enjoy working with you as secretary of state. as you said, these are complex issues and these are dangerous times. i certainly grew up hoping that that maxim of politics ends at the water's edge was actually true. i'm not sure it ever was but it's something to aspear to. we have the same goals, we want a prosperous and secure am
leverage the market. there has been some talks about a u.s.-eu partnership. i do not know if that can become reality. we need to think about not creating a threat where there is not one. understand carefully where we can find the basis of better cooperation. i want someone saying, kerry has a mistaken notion of what china is doing. i am not saying you do not have to be careful and understand where it is going. i am not talking about retreating from our current levels. i am trying to think about how we do this in a way that does not create the reaction you do not want to create. >> senator mccain. >> your 29 years of service is a great example for those of us newcomers. i thank you for that. in the opening round of russian --assurance, we raised issues about the western hemisphere. i worry that our firm -- our foreign policy has been very oriented east-west. the north-south access is important. i worry about the chinese being all over the americas. in a time -- we could see our influenzae road. i hope that the state department has that north-south access as they keep focus. your openin
and to the e.u., and i would just urge you that further progress in that area is going to continue to require american leadership, and i hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. and i just want to thank you for your leadership of the subcommittee. you've been absolutely terrific and i look forward to working with you. thanks. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement and your thoughtful response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience, your knowledge in these areas and i would have enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i'm going to enjoy working with you as the secretary of state and i mean that in all sincerity. i want to have a close working relationship. as used in your opening statement, these are complex times. you know, i sort of grew up hoping that that maximum of politics at the water's edge was actually true. i'm not sure it ever was, but i think it's something we can aspire to. i truly think
that everybody's responsible for success and, of course, for 25eu8 -- for failure as well. >> i like to remind people that as brilliant as the uav drone system is, at the end of the day, there has to be someone who tells it where to fly which in many cases, not all cases, is usually a human source. in the hunt for zarqawi, it's clear that the debriefing of a detainee was vitally important to the outcome. and we know from certain movies floating around now that detainee interrogation is a very important issue. and, of course, that raises the question of how you interrogate detainees. in the book you are about as clear as anyone i've ever seen. you say torture is, quote, self-defeating. you describe the very elaborate steps you took to make sure that any detainee in your chain of command was not abused and was housed in a facility of that have, well, it wasn't a five-star hilton, but it was an appropriate facility. and at one point you said to your troops that anyone who was involved in detainee abuse would be court-martialed and expels from the task force. expelled from the task force. why did
refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, i did vote against it. >> i
total of all of your votes refusing to sign a letter to the eu, asking has a lot to be designated as a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, being one of two to vote against sanctions this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you have made about palestinians and the jewish lobby -- all of that together, that the image you have created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as terrorist organizations. >> if there was a vote on the floor of the senate this afternoon to label the iranian national -- revolutionary guard, the people that killed soldiers in iraq, some of the most vicious people to the people of iran themselves, if there was a vote would you still vote no? >> i would want to know from the president what they were doing. ask i mean you read the paper, you w
at the e.u. level. we have been for investigation for it almost two years by the commissioner there and his staff. during this period, they comment from everybody and we give them literally millions of documents. we are busy negotiating with them. we don't think we violated any european laws, but we're happy to have the conversation and 're sort of now waiting on with a they decide to do. we have been negotiating back and forth and they have announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different if the way it's applied. in our indication, the government to have the federal trade commission look at this and a similar investigation is underway. there were a sers of hearings. i testified at the hearings and, again, i don't see the consumer arm under section 2 and we have asked the government to come back and give us the examples of things which are violations of law. we haven't seen that yet we are also in negotiations with them. that's probably all i should y. what i would say is we talk to these people a lot. we're waiting on them at some level. the ideal scenarioou
in europe and the u.s. the european process is a finding at the e.u. level. we have been for investigation for it almost two years by the commissioner there and his staff. during this period, they comment from everybody and we give them literally millions of documents. we are busy negotiating with them. we don't think we violated any european laws, but we're happy to have the conversation and we're sort of now waiting on with a they decide to do. we have been negotiating back and forth and they have announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different if the way it's applied. in our indication, the government to have the federal trade commission look at this and a similar investigation is underway. there were a series of hearings. i testified at the hearings and, again, i don't see the consumer arm under section 2 and we have asked the government to come back and give us the examples of things which are violations of law. we haven't seen that yet. we are also in negotiations with them. that's probably all i should say. what i would say is we talk to these people
enlarging the stability in europe itself by enlarging our institution, the eu or nato. what's happened to that agenda? is a no longer a part of the democratic countries? and if the answer is was so care about -- are whether georgia can become more stable, how do we get smarter about it? it isn't obvious our institutions hold the same if you used to hold five or six years ago. it isn't obvious that comes like ukraine had to stay democratizing instinct, the country of central europe had 10 years ago. so what, if anything, would you do different to make sure part of your democratic in state? >> i'd like to say quickly, i think some countries have taken a bit of an appetite suppressant when he came to their ambitions of being part of the european union, for example. >> but they are democratic. >> but they are democratic. but there also has to be benefit that flows. i think that is very much a part of the typos as to whether people are going to pursue being part of a larger union, being part of an obsession like nato. there has to be some apparent benefit in so doing. you know, the ability
. -- that our current immigration system is not working effectively, indeed is 235eu8ing 0en 00 -- indeed is failing ton a daily basis cannot be denied. it needs to be fixed. it is a challenge for us to do so and will not be easy. i would, however, warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill. and in 2006 and 2007 with the full support of the republican president of the united states, a bipartisan committee announced with great confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration system and we were all just going to line upped and vote for it much the masters of the universe had decided -- they'd meat in secret, they had all the special interest groups gather and they had worked out a plan that was going to change our immigration system for the better and we should all be most grateful. it came up with 2006, it did not pass. it came back again in 2007 with even more emphasis, and it failed coul loss -- and it failed colossally. it did not do it what they said it would do. it did not end the illegality. it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for amer
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)